I lean toward options other than fighting with a conference team - but that's just a lean. All things being equal or close, I'll go in another direction. But, if it is the clearly right play thats the path.

There are benefits from being friendly within a conference - not agreeing not to battle, but just ending up not battling intra conference saves resources.

Posted by fd343ny on 4/28/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):I lean toward options other than fighting with a conference team - but that's just a lean. All things being equal or close, I'll go in another direction. But, if it is the clearly right play thats the path.

There are benefits from being friendly within a conference - not agreeing not to battle, but just ending up not battling intra conference saves resources.

this.

and i'd say at D1 I battled conference mates probably every other season, but at lower levels it's much less common.

Posted by fd343ny on 4/28/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):I lean toward options other than fighting with a conference team - but that's just a lean. All things being equal or close, I'll go in another direction. But, if it is the clearly right play thats the path.

There are benefits from being friendly within a conference - not agreeing not to battle, but just ending up not battling intra conference saves resources.

I know I am in the minority but that last statement sounds like collusion and against the spirit of fair play.

I definitely prefer to avoid conference battles, all things considered. But I don't shy away from them either. Basically, if I like 2 guys the same and a conf mate gets on 1 and someone from another conf gets on the other, I'll battle the other conf (assuming $ seems to be about equal).

And as wronoj said, the lower you go, the less reason there is to battle anyone, much less a conf mate.

Posted by fd343ny on 4/28/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):I lean toward options other than fighting with a conference team - but that's just a lean. All things being equal or close, I'll go in another direction. But, if it is the clearly right play thats the path.

There are benefits from being friendly within a conference - not agreeing not to battle, but just ending up not battling intra conference saves resources.

I know I am in the minority but that last statement sounds like collusion and against the spirit of fair play.

He wasn't expressing an agreement not to battle, he was expressing a desire to not waste his own resources on a battle that happens to be inter-conference. The side effect of that being that the conference as a whole has more resources.

TJ- I think you may have read fdny's post wrong. His words were "not agree not to battle"- which means there is no agreement not to battle ie. there is no collusion. FD would just rather allocate his resources outside the conf because he feels that it is beneficial to his team to not battle conf mates. Battling conf mates can be bad- you reduce the strength of your conference (which some people think is bad for your team) and you potentially invite retaliation from conf mates who are in the same geographical region as you (which is definitely bad). If there are many coaches in a conference who think this way, you're not going to see a lot of battles between conf mates. Coaches strategizing in the same way is definitely not collusion.

In D1, when battling your conference mate could mean costing yourself in post season cash, lower prestige, no shot at the best players, its always a decision to be made to battle a conference mate. As others have said, there is no rule, but for obvious reasons, you should consider if screwing over a conference mate is worth it.

In D2, and D3, there's no such distinction. There is zero conference loyalty in the lower divisions.

Posted by fd343ny on 4/28/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):I lean toward options other than fighting with a conference team - but that's just a lean. All things being equal or close, I'll go in another direction. But, if it is the clearly right play thats the path.

There are benefits from being friendly within a conference - not agreeing not to battle, but just ending up not battling intra conference saves resources.

I know I am in the minority but that last statement sounds like collusion and against the spirit of fair play.

to be more clear, I did not mean and would not ever agree not to battle

I do mean, that if a number of members of a conference each separately find it wise in their independent judgment to try to avoid battles in conference, that can help each member of the conference.

it cannot be collusion each to decide yourself what to do, without agreement, without communication other than looking carefully at actions taken

I don't prefer to battle humans in recruiting, I will if I have to though. I'd say there's extra consideration for my conference mates, but I'll still hammer you home for the guy. I had a Center considering only me up until the second to last cycle before signings began, and then a guy from my conf jumped on him, but I was able to make a promise, do a couple more home visits and put him away.